The AI idea that I'm having right now is a simulation of Sartre’s explanation of Consciousness from being and nothingness. Basically there are two languages active within us. There is one that controls what we do and another that controls what we say. I want to say one is deeper and one is shallower. the one that controls what we say is the conscious part of consciousness. In Roebooks the design does this basically. The events end there language are a substrate kind of like in Sartre where the analogy is the doing part of consciousness.
The AI idea makes sense because That deeper Consciousness the kind of like silent 1 and us might not really be language but its impulses. You do something before you are able to say what you did. Raw Instinct is the instinct to at. To lash out. To breathe. later in time that is after time has elapsed as we say you can say what you did. but there is never a conscious Act of breathing. so the deeper level is not literally or physically language. But there is no more to it than what we can describe with language so in this treatment abbreviate that layers action by saying it is language. Abbreviation as I say. This is a rational move because something like a recursion of that very same substrate constitutes our speaking; is acting when it speaks. Why did we speak in certain way? Well we can explain. But there is no more precise Thing that the action could actually be because language is the very most precise then we have. it's the closest we can get without sort of telepathically exchanging feeling consciousness.
what I was thinking of when I thought of this idea: it had just occurred to me that there is a kind of state of consciousness In meditation in which you feel that you're sort of like free from having a subject of your thought. Your attention is perfectly unfocused. but something makes it unfocused and your nominal consciousness. There is something in you doing something like Preventing Focus. But somehow your overall state is yet one of inaction of lacking Focus not of consciously focusing. You are consciously focused on a lack of focus. if you haven't experienced this you might not buy the argument at all. it's like you're relaxing right on the edge of a hiccup. it's like you have a real hair-trigger muscle that you're focusing on relaxing. perhaps some part of you knows it's going to Twitch but perhaps with practice and dedicated Focus you can last much longer and even for days at a time be free from focus. And then you forget about the thing in you that is focused on being unfocused and then I guess your zen. Enlightened.
so maybe start was not a dualist but a monist if we have to get into that paradigm. as Dreyfus says that was a problem to the start counting in first place. no one is right. Although his opponents (sartre’s) many of them want to say he's dualist, and the inner can not touch the outer, actually he's continuist: they're all 1 more like a blanket folded over. that does not work because there would still have to be a boundary between the layers and the blanket and what constitutes the space in between? and there I was thinking I came up with a smart blanket analogy.